 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hamilton v. Cooperative of American Physicians Inc./Mutual Protection Trust6/9/2005
he judgment entered against him. The arbitrators found that but for Hamilton's conduct, CAP/MPT would have been liable for the default judgment. Hamilton must, at a minimum, demonstrate that this conclusion in some manner could be undermined by the evidence he was denied. He does not. Instead he states: " he validity and effectiveness of Dr. Hamilton's termination is not in dispute." (Boldface omitted.)
Hamilton's argument that substantial prejudice must be assumed wherever discovery is denied would lead to a result at odds with the narrow judicial review established in Moncharsh which we are obligated to follow. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.) As another court explained: " `We do not accept the suggestion . . . that [former] section 1286.2, subdivision (e), [now section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(5)] provides a back door to Moncharsh through which parties may routinely test the validity of legal theories of arbitrators. Instead, we interpret section 1286.2, subdivision (e), as a safety valve in private arbitration that permits a court to intercede when an arbitrator has prevented a party from fairly presenting its case. . . . Where, as here, a party complains of excluded material evidence, the reviewing court should generally focus first on prejudice, not materiality.' " (Schlessinger v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1096 quoting Hall v. Superior Court (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 427, 438-439 (italics omitted).)
Hamilton's one claim that is supported by the record is that he was not provided information which he deems critical until the arbitration hearing started. In his statement of facts, Hamilton points out that he did not learn until the arbitration proceeding commenced that "certain claims personnel at CAP/MPT had apparently discussed and agreed to send Dr. Hamilton a letter with a `drop dead' date `sometime in mid-September' by which to bring his arrearages on his assessment current. [Citation.] These personnel seemed to have known `for some time' Dr. Hamilton was `seriously' in arrears, and they were aware the next . . . meeting had been scheduled for September 23, 1998." (Boldface and italics omitted.) However, this delay in receiving discovery is not something Hamilton argues (or demonstrates) substantially prejudiced him.
DISPOSITION
The judgment denying Hamilton's petition to vacate the arbitration award is affirmed. CAP/MPT is entitled to its costs on appeal.
We concur: BOLAND, J., FLIER, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|